I understand that on Thursday April 8th 2010 at 10am Dr Myhill was ordered by the GMC to attend a Hearing in Manchester on Monday April 12th with a view to withdrawing her licence to practice (Case Reference: PB/C1-314994282).

One week previously, she had received a complaint about her website, to which she had yet to reply. However, on the basis of this unsubstantiated complaint by an anonymous complainant (she was told his name but not who he was), the GMC decided that “there is a potential risk to public safety”. There are no specific allegations, she is not being allowed to defend herself against any such allegations, she may have to wait a further 18 months for such a hearing when her licence could then be restored.

No patient has complained, no patient has been harmed and no patient has been put at any risk of harm. However, should she lose her licence, patients will certainly be put at risk of harm; partly because they will be denied access to medication essential to their well being, partly because they will lose access to tests and partly because she will be unable to support patients in applications for DLA and other such medico-legal issues.

I am astounded and outraged that the GMC would take these steps at all, even more so for such a reason – 1 days notice for a hearing to revoke a medical license with no opportunity for self-defense, based on one anonymous complaint about a website? Guilty until proven innocent? Witch hunt?

I further understand that Dr. Myhill has asked for and received a postponement of the hearing, to April 29, so that she has time adequate time to appoint representation.

Dr. Myhill is a globally respected medical practitioner. Her webpage is a valuable resource, used by people not only in the UK, but around the world. The sections relevant to Myalgic Encephalomylitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome(CFS) are of particular value to me as I have this biophysical disease. Her work on mitochondrial dysfunction provides a great framework for understanding this disease and is respected research. ("Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Mitochondrial Dysfunction"; Dr. Myhill, Prof Norman Booth of Oxford University, Dr John McLaren Howard of Acumen; Int J Clin Exp Med. 2009; 2(1): 1–16. Published online 2009 January 15. PMCID: PMC2680051 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680051/

Should Dr Myhill’s licence be revoked, not only will her patients be harmed, but the approximately 17,000,000 people world-wide with ME/CFS will be harmed by being deprived of her website, and the GMC will have deeply embarrassed itself.

I ask 2 things:

1. That my email be presented and entered as evidence that I have been helped by the information on Dr. Myhill’s website at the hearing of Dr Myhill.

2. That you respond to my email and address the concerns and requests I have expressed.

The world is watching. I sincerely hope that the GMC drops this charge immediately, sparing all involved the time and expense of a hearing based on such insubstantial claims.

Can I suggest we send copies (or confirmation that we have contacted the GMC) to Sarah Myhill so that she can keep a tally? That way, the GMC will not be able to 'underclaim' the level of support that she has from patients.

I understand that the GMC has ordered Dr. Sarah Myhill to attend an Interim Orders Panel proceeding with a view to withdrawing her licence to practice medicine (Case Reference: PB/C1-314994282), and that this action is based on a concern that her website represents a threat to public safety.

I am not a British citizen, and I don't know whether my views are of any concern to you in this matter, but as someone who has been an active member of the international research community associated with chronic fatigue syndrome for 14 years, and someone who has been familiar with the research and clinical work of Dr. Myhill, as well as the development of her website over much of that period, I feel impelled to share my concern about this action.

In my view, Dr. Myhill's website, far from being a threat to public safety, is actually one of the best sources of information for members of the public about chronic fatigue syndrome and its treatment, and the positive impact of her website reaches far beyond the shores of the British Isles. Dr. Myhill has been a pioneer in recognizing the major role of mitochondrial dysfunction in this disorder, which goes a long way toward substantiating the physiological, as opposed to a psychiatric, basis of this disorder.

Rather than pursuing new efforts to withdraw Dr. Myhill's license, in my view the GMC should be making efforts to give her an award of excellence, as an example of how medicine should be practiced in the UK. In this way, the GMC would be making a major contribution to improving the understanding and treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome, not only in the UK. but worldwide.

He used Armour Thyroid and low dose Hydrocortisone as he believed, and still does, that there are problems with the HPA axis caused by viral infection. He would arrange multiple lab testing via Biolab to try and establish what was happening in your body. He was the only Doctor who listened and actually tried to help.

The hounds of Hell were unleashed on him as well, in the form of the GMC, because of unsubstantiated complaints from another doctor.

Can I suggest we send copies (or confirmation that we have contacted the GMC) to Sarah Myhill so that she can keep a tally? That way, the GMC will not be able to 'underclaim' the level of support that she has from patients.

PERMISSION TO FORWARD, USE IN NEWSLETTERS AND RE POST ON FACEBOOK PAGES

"Dear Mr Bridge,

I know you will receive many letters in support of Dr Sarah Myhill, now facing a summons to attend a second Fitness to Practice Hearing (Case Reference: PB/C1-314994282), particularly from her patients who fear that, if she were to lose her licence to practise, they would be left in isolation without care from anyone else.

My concern is for the matter of justice in this case. I presume that the GMC has taken legal advice before deciding, on the basis of an unsubstantiated anonymous complaint about Dr Myhill's website, that “there is a potential risk to public safety”? This seems an aberration of the principle of justice enshrined in English law of innocence until proved guilty.

May I ask: are you proceeding solely, or principally, on the basis of uncorroborated allegations of one anonymous man? I ask because the opportunity for mischief making and even spite or malevolence seems obvious.

Especially if your replies are in the affirmative, I shall be lobbying my MP for an urgent review of these principles in law and looking at the comparative positions in Europe and beyond.

Whatever the outcome of this enquiry, shall we learn the identity of this complainant; if not, why not and, if it turns out that he has committed some offence or wasted the time of the Council, will you prosecute him with the same vigour as you have Dr Myhill?

Niall Dickson joined the General Medical Council as Chief Executive and Registrar in January 2010.

He joined the GMC from The King's Fund, the leading independent think tank and development organisation, where he was Chief Executive for six years (2004-2009).

He began his career in teaching before taking up posts in national voluntary organisations involved with older people. He was Editor of Therapy Weekly for the allied health professions and then of Nursing Times.

He moved to the BBC in 1988 as Health Correspondent, became Chief Social Affairs Correspondent and then, in 1995, Social Affairs Editor, focussing mainly on Radio 4's Today programme and the Ten O'clock News on BBC 1.

Niall is a member of the Cabinet Office Honours Committee (Health) and the Department of Health's End of Life Care Implementation Advisory Board. In 2008, he chaired a cross-party commission on accountability in health for the Local Government Association (LGA).

He is a trustee of the Leeds Castle Foundation. His honorary awards include being a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and as Fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

"It has been a feature of GMC investigations that they have taken patients' private and confidential medical notes often without patients' knowledge, often without permission, without offering them their legal right to object and without anonymising their notes."

So, it's ok for the GMC to have unrestricted and unpermitted access to patient information whenever they want but the general public has to wait for 70 years to see what is in the 'secret' files held at the National Archives. Anyone spot a disconnect?

Hi, all; through some process I do not understand, Craig Robinson ( craighrobinson@hotmail.co.uk ) seems to be monitoring emails, and has forwarded mine to Sarah Myhill and I have received a thank-you email from her directly. So our letters seem to be getting through, and may they have some effect! But I think the idea of asking for some kind of receipt and whatever else is a good idea. Best, Chris

I understand that on Thursday April 8th 2010 at 10am Dr Myhill was ordered by the GMC to attend a Hearing in Manchester on Monday April 12th with a view to withdrawing her licence to practice (Case Reference: PB/C1-314994282).

One week previously, she had received a complaint about her website, to which she had yet to reply. However, on the basis of this unsubstantiated complaint by an anonymous complainant (she was told his name but not who he was), the GMC decided that “there is a potential risk to public safety”. There are no specific allegations, she is not being allowed to defend herself against any such allegations, she may have to wait a further 18 months for such a hearing when her licence could then be restored.

No patient has complained, no patient has been harmed and no patient has been put at any risk of harm. However, should she lose her licence, patients will certainly be put at risk of harm; partly because they will be denied access to medication essential to their well being, partly because they will lose access to tests and partly because she will be unable to support patients in applications for DLA and other such medico-legal issues.

I am astounded and outraged that the GMC would take these steps at all, even more so for such a reason – 1 days notice for a hearing to revoke a medical license with no opportunity for self-defense, based on one anonymous complaint about a website? Guilty until proven innocent? Witch hunt?

I further understand that Dr. Myhill has asked for and received a postponement of the hearing, to April 29, so that she has time adequate time to appoint representation.

Dr. Myhill is a globally respected medical practitioner. Her webpage is a valuable resource, used by people not only in the UK, but around the world. The sections relevant to Myalgic Encephalomylitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome(CFS) are of particular value to me as I have this biophysical disease. Her work on mitochondrial dysfunction provides a great framework for understanding this disease and is respected research. ("Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Mitochondrial Dysfunction"; Dr. Myhill, Prof Norman Booth of Oxford University, Dr John McLaren Howard of Acumen; Int J Clin Exp Med. 2009; 2(1): 1–16. Published online 2009 January 15. PMCID: PMC2680051 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680051/

Should Dr Myhill’s licence be revoked, not only will her patients be harmed, but the approximately 17,000,000 people world-wide with ME/CFS will be harmed by being deprived of her website, and the GMC will have deeply embarrassed itself.

I ask 2 things:

1. That my email be presented and entered as evidence that I have been helped by the information on Dr. Myhill’s website at the hearing of Dr Myhill.

2. That you respond to my email and address the concerns and requests I have expressed.

The world is watching. I sincerely hope that the GMC drops this charge immediately, sparing all involved the time and expense of a hearing based on such insubstantial claims.

Sincerely,

Click to expand...

All of these letters posted are great. I have chosen to simply email the GMC and endorse IslandFinn's. Thanks, IF!

"As a lawyer, ME patient and ME expert, I am absolutely appalled at GMC's continuing persecution of the extremely competent, internationally lauded and even heroic physician Sarah Myhill. Your time would be much better spent removing the medical license of Simon Wessely and his cohorts for their crimes against ME patients and public health.

I endorse the following letter sent to you by another commentator:"

I was going to say by Island Finn, but that didn't seem appropriate and I don't know your name.

Hi, all; through some process I do not understand, Craig Robinson ( craighrobinson@hotmail.co.uk ) seems to be monitoring emails, and has forwarded mine to Sarah Myhill and I have received a thank-you email from her directly. So our letters seem to be getting through, and may they have some effect! But I think the idea of asking for some kind of receipt and whatever else is a good idea. Best, Chris

Click to expand...

Hi Chris, can you clarify? Did Craig Robinson reply to the email you sent to Dr Myhill - or to the email you sent to the GMC? Thanks.

"We the undersigned wish to register our strong objections to the GMC (General Medical Council) over the witch hunt campaign to discredit Dr Sarah Myhill. This is the 6th time that Dr Myhill has been subjected to such a hearing and enough is enough!"

Hi, Fred; I mailed Robinson, and just got a reply; he would like to receive copies of any emails sent to GMC--send to craighrobinson@hotmail.co.uk --preferably Bcc (I don't know what that means, but that is what he wrote....). Craig Robinson tells me he has been involved in this fight for years, worked on the defence for her first "trial," and did the statistics for the paper on mito function. He also told me that if I know anyone good at getting stuff like this into the Press, that would help the fight--any ideas? Best, Chris

Hi, Fred; I mailed Robinson, and just got a reply; he would like to receive copies of any emails sent to GMC--send to craighrobinson@hotmail.co.uk --preferably Bcc (I don't know what that means, but that is what he wrote....). Craig Robinson tells me he has been involved in this fight for years, worked on the defence for her first "trial," and did the statistics for the paper on mito function. He also told me that if I know anyone good at getting stuff like this into the Press, that would help the fight--any ideas? Best, Chris

Click to expand...

Bcc means blind copy - so the recipient can't see that the person has been copied on the mail.

I'm a bit confused about the reasons for bcc'ing Craig when mails are being sent to Sarah anyway. I think perhaps we should wait to see whether Sarah knows of him and agrees with this action.

Sarah does know of him. I am positive of this. Craig is a statistician, did the numbers for her research and has been working with her. His name is on a paper published by her mito test research subjects having to do with the mito testing. I can't find it now, he sent it to me ages ago. I suggest bcc-ing him as he requested as time is of the essence.

Hi, all; through some process I do not understand, Craig Robinson ( craighrobinson@hotmail.co.uk ) seems to be monitoring emails, and has forwarded mine to Sarah Myhill and I have received a thank-you email from her directly. So our letters seem to be getting through, and may they have some effect! But I think the idea of asking for some kind of receipt and whatever else is a good idea. Best, Chris

Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

So glad that you wrote a letter too. I'm sure it was great as you have a great skill with language.

I'm still a bit confused. How did craig robinson ever get hold of your email in the first place? Did you post it on the forums (if you did and I missed it, so sorry) and he copied it from here and sent it off? Did you send it to the GMC and he got hold of it somehow? ......

It seems odd to me. I agree with the advice of waiting until we hear from Dr Myhill's office as to whether she wants him to receive copies of the letters - preferably a request posted on her site.

He may be this person (but even so, unless Dr Myhill has authorized him to collect letters for him for some purpose that we individually believe is the right thing to do - why would we send him copies?)

fred - you're a force to be reckoned with. I didn't know this was the 6th time she's gone through this.
(too bad the US isn't doing this about some websites there that actually do harm; instead we have the UK doing this for a site that does good.)